Assessing water quality in the Kelebek Stream branch (Gediz River Basin, West Anatolia of Turkey) using physicochemical and macroinvertebrate-based indices

(1)

AQUATIC RESEARCH

E-ISSN 2618-6365

260

Assessing water quality in the Kelebek Stream branch (Gediz

River Basin, West Anatolia of Turkey) using physicochemical and

macroinvertebrate-based indices

Alperen ERTAŞ

,

Bülent YORULMAZ

Cite this article as:

Ertaş, A., Yorulmaz, B. (2021). Assessing water quality in the Kelebek Stream branch (Gediz River Basin, West Antolia of Turkey) using physicochemi-cal and macroinvertebrate-based indices. Aquatic Research, 4(3), 260-278. https://doi.org/10.3153/AR21020

1 _{Ege University, Faculty of Science,}

De-partment of Biology, 35100 Bornova, İzmir, Turkey

2 _{Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University,}

Fac-ulty of Science, Department of Biology, Kötekli, Muğla, Turkey

ORCID IDs of the author(s):

A.E. 0000-0001-8510-6100 B.Y. 0000-0003-1654-8874

Submitted: 21.09.2020 Revision requested: 05.02.2021 Last revision received: 05.02.2021 Accepted: 06.02.2021 Published online: 29.04.2021 Correspondence: Alperen ERTAŞ E-mail: [email protected] © 2021 The Author(s) Available online at http://aquatres.scientificwebjournals.com ABSTRACT

This study was carried out in Kelebek, which is the most important stream in Gediz River Basin, Turkey, to determine water quality by using macroinvertebrate-based metrics and physicochemial variables. In addition, we also aimed to investigate the effects of anthropogenic pressure and dam construction on stream macroinvertebrates during the study period. In this study, following biotic indices are used: Saprobi Index (SI), Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP), Average Score per Taxon (ASPT), Family Biotic Index (FBI), Belgian Biotic Index (BBI), as well as di-versity indices: Shannon-Weaver index (SWDI), Simpsons index (SDI) and Margalef index (MDI). Collection of macroinvertebrate samples and the physicochemical measurements were car-ried out monthly for a year. As a result of the identification, the most dominant macroinverterate group was Insecta. Our results show the presence of 9 taxonomic group in the stream which belong to nine groups: Oligochaeta, Mollusca, Crustacea, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Odonata, Coleoptera, Diptera. Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) indicates importance of phys-icochemial variables in the distribution of different macroinvertebrates groups (total variance 88%), species (total variance 86.2%) and biotic indices (total variance 88.2%). The water quality along the Kelebek Stream show variation from good class in station #1, #2 and #5, to moderate in station #3 and #4. We conclude that BMWP (Original), BMWP (Spanish), BMWP (Greek) and ASPT indices are suitable for assessing stream health by macroinvertebrates.

Keywords: Gediz River Basin, Kelebek Stream, Macroinvertebrates, Biotic Index, Water Quality Aquat Res 4(3), 260-278 (2021) • https://doi.org/10.3153/AR21020 Research Article

(2)

Aquat Res 4(3), 260-278 (2021) • https://doi.org/10.3153/AR21020 Research Article

Introduction

In today's world where sustainable growth and development strategies are made, the use of natural resources as a raw ma-terial and environmental pollution caused by production-con-sumption cause great ecological crises. Increasing damage to freshwater resources is just one of these crises. Water is an extremely valuable, economic and strategic resource both in our region and in the world. In underdeveloped and develop-ing countries, as a result of the discharge of wastewater to water sources without treatment, 1.4 billion people in the world are still trying to continue their lives without the op-portunity to use clean water (Girgin et al. 2004).

Streams cover 1% of freshwaters in the world and play a very important role in the water cycle (Wetzel, 2001). For this rea-son, streams must be managed well and pollution must be well detected and followed for sustainable water manage-ment. Stream polluting factors are regional and widespread pollutants such as sewage water, industrial waste, materials carried by surface runoffs, pesticides and fertilizers resulting from agricultural activities.

To determine the current status of streams, it is necessary to calculate the ecological status in the water bodies. Three basic quality elements (hydromorphological, physicochemical and biological) are used in the calculation of the ecological situa-tion. Biological quality elements are determined using five organism groups such as benthic macroinvertebrates, macro-phyte, fish, phytoplankton, and diatome (Akay et al. 2008). Among these groups, benthic macroinvertebrates get the most attention. Benthic macroinvertebrates are often preferred in water quality studies because they have a longer life cycle than macrophytes and algae, respond to environmental changes in a shorter time compared to fish. They are easy to collect and they are generally diagnosed at the level of genus and family (Bonada et al., 2006).

Biotic indices are the focus of biological monitoring studies based on benthic invertebrates. Many existing biotic indices were created according to specific geographic and climatic regions. Many European countries have created various indi-ces with statistical variations of their diagnosis and counting on different organisms (Korycińska and Królak 2006; Yorulmaz et al. 2015). In this direction, the Saprobi Index (SI) (Kolkwitz and Marsson, 1902) in Germany, the BMWP and ASPT (De Pauw and Hawkes, 1993) in England, the BBI (De Pauw and Heylen, 2001) in Belgium, the FBI (Hilsen-hoff, 1988) in USA, Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI) (Skriver et al., 2001) in Denmark, give the most reliable re-sults specific to geographical regions. A lot of biotic indices have been used based on benthic macroinvertebrates to deter-mine water quality in Anatolia (Kazancı and Dügel, 2000;

Kalyoncu and Zeybek, 2009; Kazancı et al. 2010; Zeybek et al. 2014; Yorulmaz et al. 2015; Zeybek, 2017). Biological monitoring studies are conducted for 25 years in Turkey; however a biological water quality index specific to Turkey has not been developed.

The aim of this study is to determine the water quality of the stream and to compare the results of seven biotic indices and three-diversity indices accordance with physicochemical characteristics of Kelebek Stream in West Anatolia region of Turkey.

Material and Methods

Study Area and Benthic Macroinertebrate Sampling

This study was carried out on Kelebek Stream in the Gediz River Basin of west of Turkey (Figure 1). Kelebek Stream is located in Ahmetli plain of Ahmetli district of Manisa prov-ince. The length of the stream is 41 km2_{. The Mediterranean} climate prevails in the region. Summers are dry and hot, win-ters are mild and rainy. July-August are the hottest months and January-February are the coldest months.

Kelebek Stream is used as irrigation water source for the sur-rounding agricultural fields. The sampling stations were cho-sen based on stream source, dam construction, domestic areas and pollutant factors. The research was conducted during Au-gust 2019 and July 2020 at five monitoring stations that in-cluded the upstream of the stream (#1 and #2), and down-stream (#3, #4 and #5). The sampling carried out monthly over a year in the stream. The characteristic of sampling sta-tions are presented in Table 1.

In Kelebek Stream, the benthic macroinvertebrates were col-lected from each station by using a classic 50x30 size with a 250 µm mesh hand net. Macroinvertebrate sampling was done by moving downstream of the steam towards the up-stream. Macroinvertebrates were obtained from the different substrate types such as rock, sand, and gravel present at the stations. Some sessile organisms adhering to the large stone, rock or any other substrate, collected by removing from the water was made with forceps (AQEM Consortium, 2002). The taken organisms were storage in 70% alcohol and 4% formaldehyde, and then brought to the Ege University Hydro-biology Research Laboratory. Brought samples from the stream were categorized and diagnosed to the lowest possible taxonomic level such as genus or species, under a ZEISS ste-reomicroscope.

(3)

262

Figure 1. Map of the sampling stations in Kelebek Stream.

Table 1. Key characteristics of sampling stations in Kelebek Stream.

Sampling Station Coordinates

(N-E) Habitat Stream morphology Riparian vegeta-tion #1 The source point of the stream. 38o_{39’ N}

27o_{90’ E} Large rocks (> 50 cm) _{mixed with stone and}

wood debris

Flow velocity >12 m/sec

No Macrophyte were present Well developed in both side.

#2 Kelebek Stream in village Horzum.

Agricultural areas and domestic settlements around the stream. The construction of Kelebek Dam is ongoing.

38o_{41’ N}

27o_{92’ E}

Large stones, gravels

and wood debris. Flow velocity >8 m/sec No Macrophyte were present

Well developed in both side.

#3 Kelebek Stream in village Dereköy.

Agricultural areas and domestic settlements are intense around the stream.

38o_{47’ N}

27o_{93’ E} _{Rubbles, gravel, silt}

and cobbles

Construction waste present. Low water flow. Flow velocity <5 m/sec

No Macrophyte were present

It’s not well developed.

#4 Kelebek Stream in Ahmetli district.

Domestic settlements are intense around the stream.

38o_{52’ N}

27o_{94’ E} Sand, rubbles, silt and _cobbles Domestic wastes runoff. _{Flow velocity <3 m/sec. No}

Macrophyte were present

It’s not well developed.

#5 The point where the Kelebek Stream

drain into the Gediz River. 38

o_{55’ N}

(4)

Physicochemical Parameters

To determine the water quality classes, 12 physicochemical parameters were monitored over a year period. Water temper-ature (T°C), pH, Electrical conductivity (EC), Turbidity (TU), Oxygen saturation (Sat. O2) and dissolved oxygen (DO) of each water sample were measured at the sampling points by oxygen meter and multiparameter.

The Biochemical oxygen demand (BOI5) parameter was as-sessed by using a spectrophotometer on the base of Winkler azide method with Merck BOD Cell Test Kits. The ortho-phosphate (PO4-P), ammoniacal nitrogen (NH4-N), nitrate (NO2-N), nitrite (NO3-N), and chloride (Cl-) were analysed by using appropriate Merck kits according to manufacturer’s instructions (Merck Phosphate, Ammonium, Nitrite, Nitrate and Chloride Test Kits). For each analysis, two containers (1.0 L) were taken from the water samples in duplicate. All water samples were stored in insulated cooler containing ice and taken on the same day to laboratory and stored at 4o_C until processing and analysis (APHA 2005).

Belong to all mathematical and statistical analyses on the physicochemical data sets were made using Excel 2019 (Mi-crosoft OfficeR_{) and SPSS version 20.0.}

Biotic Indices

The benthic macroinvertebrates were analyzed to determine the biological quality score by using ASTERICS 4.04 soft-ware program (AQEM Consortium, 2002). With this pur-pose, the BBI, FBI, SI, ASPT, BMWP (Original), BMWP (Spanish) and BMWP (Greek) indices were used to determine the water quality of Kelebek Stream. The values obtained are evaluated in five classes by presenting common color code according to European Union (EU) Directive 2000/60/EC 2004–2006 (2005).

SWDI, SDI and MDI were used to determine the species rich-ness of the stations in the stream by using the ASTERICS 4.04 software program. The faunal similarities based on ben-thic macroinvertebrates between the sampling stations were assessed by using Bray- Curtis similarity index (Sommer-field, 2008; Yoshioka, 2008). Pearson’s based correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis were applied by us-ing from SPSS version 20.0. In this study, the relationships between physicochemical and biotic parameters were deter-mined by using CCA based on multivariate statistical analy-sis (Ter Braak, 1995).

Results and Discussion

Physicochemical Variables

The results of the analyzed physicochemical variables of wa-ter in five sampling stations along the stream are presented in Table 2. According to the One-Way Anova test, the all phys-icochemical parameters varied significantly with respect to the stations (P <0.05).

To_{C is a very important parameter for aquatic life. It is known} that the metabolism of organisms, especially fish, varies with temperature. For example, carp is euriterm but begins feeding (8-10°C) and breeding (15°C) only after certain temperatures (Nikolsky, 1963). The most suitable water temperature for trouts is 8-16°C (Wetzel, 2001). The mean value of To_C var-ied from 9.92o_{C in station #1 in the source area, up to 15.9}o_C in station #5 of the stream.

pH, which is an indicator of the acidity of water, is one of the important factors affecting the life. In lake waters that are not contaminated in any way, the pH value varies between 6.0 and 9.0. While many fish species show good growth in waters with a pH of 6.5-8.5 (Arrignon, 1976, Dauba, 1981), waters with a pH higher than 10.8 and less than 5.0 have a lethal effect for the Cyprinidae (especially carp) (Svobodá et al. 1993). Generally, alkaline waters are more suitable for trout production (Wetzel, 2001). For cyprinid health, the manda-tory pH range in waters is expected to be 6.00 – 9.00 (EC 2006). According to the pH data determined in the region, there is no risk for cyprinid species. The pH has shown small alteration, with minimum value 6.94 in station #5 and maksi-mum value 7.60 in station #1, meaning that in all stations the stream water is neutral.

The increase in EC in drinking water indicates that the water is contaminated or sea water is mixed into the water. The highest mean value of EC in this study were measured in sta-tion #4 (440.5 mS/m) in the downstream area. It is known that EC values increase as the pollution increases in freshwaters (Verep et al. 2005).

TU is seen in waters containing suspended solids, which pre-vent the passage of light. It is recommended not to exceed 1 NTU (turbidity unit) by EPA and world health organization (WHO). The strength of the sewer and commercial waste is expressed with turbidity (Tanyolaç, 2004). Therefore, the de-gree of turbidity of surface water is measured as the dede-gree of pollution. The mean value of TU concentration varied from 3.09 ppt (station #1) to 73.5 ppt (station #5).

Oxygen is a vital variable for a healthy aquatic life. It is de-sired that the fish grown waters are saturated with oxygen (Bremond and Vuichard, 1973). Bremond and Vuichard (1973) stated that the minimum amount of DO required for

(5)

264

the cyprinid to survive should be 5.0 mg/L. For trouts, the oxygen of the water should be at least 7.0 mg/L (Wetzel, 2001). BOI5 is the amount of dissolved molecular oxygen used by microorganisms during the 5-day incubation period to oxidize the structure of organic substances in water at 20°C (Bytyçi et al., 2019; Etemi et al., 2020). The mean value of DO concentration varied from 12.0 mg/L (station #1) to 7.75 mg/L (station #5). The mean values of BOI5 in sampling sta-tions ranged from 1.29 mg/L in station #1 to 8.76 mg/L in station #4. The mean values of Sat. O2 in sampling stations ranged from 118.2% in station #1 to 81.7% in station #5. Elements that limit efficiency in aquatic environments are mostly PO4-P, NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N (Moss, 1987). The NO3-N in groundwater and surface waters results from the

oxidation of ammonia, which occurs as a result of the decom-position of proteins contained in vegetable and animal wastes, and nitrate fertilizers used in agricultural areas. NO3 -N is the most common form of nitrogen in freshwaters, and it is very rare in uncontaminated waters (Wetzel, 2001). The NO3-N range was from 1.10 mg/L in station #1 to 6.12 mg/L in station #4. It is also below the limit value reported as 50 mg/L in World Health Organization, where the NO3-N values determined at all stations examined in the stream are below the recommended 10 mg/L limit value in healthy waters re-ported by EPA. (WHO, 2011). The increase of NO3- in sta-tion #4 and #5 showed the rich of these two stasta-tions with nu-trients caused by discharges of domestic wastes in the vicinity of Kelebek Stream.

Table 2. Summarize statistics of water quality parameters at the stations in Kelebek Stream.

Parameters Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5

T (°C) M±Sd. R 9.92±0.55 9.2-10.4 10.4±0.58 9.8-11.0 15.2±1.47 13.8-16.6 15.6±1.63 13.9-17.1 15.9±1.75 14.0-17.6 pH R M±Sd. 7.60±0,10 7.51-7.73 7.53±0.09 7.44-7.65 7.04±0.05 7.00-7.12 7.00±0.009 7.00-7.02 6.94±0.06 6.87-7.00 EC (mS/m) M±Sd. R 165.5±9.88 151-173 245.7±35.7 196-276 278.7±34.3 228-301 440.5±35.9 401-487 316.7±36.8 283-369 TU (ppt) M±Sd. R 3.09±0.76 2.01-3.84 4.09±1.18 2.91-5.37 46.7±12.3 33.7-58.1 69.2±13.6 55.7-81.6 73.5±11.8 60.1-84.3 DO (mg/l) M±Sd. R 12.0±1.67 10.4-13.8 11.5±1.70 9.95-13.1 9.52±0.26 9.18-9.77 8.35±0.87 7.34-9.12 7.75±0.90 6.90-8.79 Sat. O2 (%) M±Sd. R 118.2±13.6 104-135 106.5±9.67 96-117 95.5±7.32 88-104 88±11.6 77-100 81.7±13.1 68-94 BOI5 (mg/l) M±Sd. R 1.29±0.12 1.11-1.39 1.36±0.09 1.23-1.44 4.52±0.10 4.38-4.64 8.76±1.11 7.19-9.78 6.32±0.25 6.05-6.64 NH4-N (mg/L) M±Sd. R 0.05±0,01 0.04-0.07 0,21±0.12 0.09-0.36 7.11±2.60 4.37-9.76 13.4±1.57 11.2-14.9 10.4±0.86 9.46-11.3 NO2-N (mg/L) M±Sd. R 0.08±0.02 0.05-0.10 0.10±0.01 0.09-0.12 3.29±0.37 3.05-3.85 5.31±0.50 4.76-5.94 3.14±0.68 2.12-3.56 NO3-N (mg/L) M±Sd. R 1.10±0.02 1.07-1.13 1.14±0.03 1.10-1.18 2.25±0.08 2.18-2.37 6.12±0.73 5.13-6.89 4.30±0.40 3.81-4.78 Cl- (mg/L) M±Sd R 2.99±0.16 2.75-3.11 3.78±0.51 3.02-4.14 5.41±1.12 3.78-6.37 33.1±4.16 27.4-36.5 23.0±2.68 19.2-25.4 PO4 (mg N/L) R M±Sd 0.04±0.008 0.03-0.05 0.047±0.009 0.04-0.06 4.89±0.42 4.26-5.11 8.12±1.58 5.87-9.57 5.10±1.41 3.27-6.71

(6)

Aquat Res 4(3), 260-278 (2021) • https://doi.org/10.3153/AR21020 Research Article PO4-P in ground and surface waters depends on population

density, agricultural fertilization methods and fertilization frequency, and vegetation and soil structure are also signifi-cantly influenced by PO4-P accumulation in waters. In addi-tion, it has been reported that detergents used in cleaning and reaching the receiving water environment with wastewater are factors affecting PO4-P concentration (Wetzel, 2001). Ac-cording to the classification reported by Uslu and Türkman (1987) based on phosphate concentrations in waters; waters with phosphate concentrations up to 0.02 mg/L is Class I, wa-ters up to 0.16 mg/L Class II, wawa-ters up to 0.65 mg/L Class III, water higher than 0.65 mg/L has class IV water quality (Wetzel, 2001). The minimum mean value of PO4-P was 0.04 mg/L, registered in stations #1, and the maximum was 8.12 mg/L in station #4.

According to the drinking water standards reported by the WHO, it is expected that the NO2-N value in the waters will not exceed the 0.2 mg/L limit (WHO, 2011). According to the EC directive reported by the European Commission, the NO2 -N concentration in waters is expected not to exceed the 0.03 mg/L limit in terms of cyprinid health (EC, 2006). The mini-mum mean value of NO2-N was 0.08 mg/L in station #1, and the maximum was 5.31 mg/L in station #4. Accordingly, NO2-N concentrations detected downstream stations in Kele-bek Stream almost pose a risk to cyprinid health. As it is known, the most important sources of NO2-N in waters are; organic substances, nitrogenous fertilizers and some minerals (Wetzel 2001). The very high nitrite values detected in the waters of the region show that the wastes of the settlements are discharged into the system without any or sufficient puri-fication and that agricultural fertilizers used in the basin are an ecologically important source of stress.

Ammonium content increases as a result of the deterioration of organic materials, especially organic fertilizer and chemi-cal fertilization from inorganic ammonium, discharge of do-mestic and industrial wastewater (Egemen and Sunlu, 1996). Tanyolaç (2004) states that ammonium nitrogen is generally below 1.0 mg/L in clean waters. The minimum mean value of NH4-N was 0.05 mg/L in station #1, and the maximum was 13.4 mg/L in station #4.

Cl-_{values are very important in terms of both drinking,} in-dustrial and irrigation water quality (Ünlü et al. 2008). The high Cl-_{values indicate that the electrical conductivity is also} high. The amount of chloride in many drinking water does not exceed 30 mg/L (Egemen and Sunlu, 1996). The mean value of Cl (mg/L) varied from 2.99 mg/L in station #1 in the source area, up to 33.1 mg/L in station #4 of the stream. These values showed that upstream stations of the stream in-dicates the “good” water quality class according to Klee

(1991), but the water quality decreases in the downstream sta-tions of the stream.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data

In this study, a total of 4.130 benthic macroinvertebrate sam-ples were collected; all the specimens collected belong to nine groups: Oligochaeta, Mollusca, Crustacea, Ephemerop-tera, PlecopEphemerop-tera, TrichopEphemerop-tera, Odonata, ColeopEphemerop-tera, Diptera. The maximum numbers of individual were collected at sta-tion #5 (928 individuals), while the minimum numbers of in-dividual were collected at station #1 (711 inin-dividuals). The lowest number of individuals were determined in autumn while the highest number of individuals were determined in spring with the collection of all benthic invertebrate samples (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The total percent of benthic macroinvertebrates

according to season.

As a result of this count, the most dominant group in all ben-thic macroinvertebrate groups was Insecta in the stream (Fig-ure 3).

Figure 3. Benthic invertebrate groups in Kelebek Stream.

Considering all taxonomic groups in the stream,

Ephem-eroptera is the most dominant group in station #1, #2 and

#5 (44%, 34% and 27% respectively). Diptera is the

most dominant group in station #3 and #4 (43%) (Figure

4).

1049,00

;

26%

918,00;

22%

924,00;

22%

1239,00

;

30%

(7)

266

(8)

Aquat Res 4(3), 260-278 (2021) • https://doi.org/10.3153/AR21020 Research Article Distributions and relative percentage of occurrence (%),

along with a list of the recorded macroinvertebrates with color codes, were showed in Table 3. The relative percent-ages of occurrence (%) of the determined species were dif-fered from each other. For instance, Baetis sp. was the most dominant species (7.454%, 5.698%) at the station #1 and #2, respectively; Gammarus sp. (9.961%, 9.591%) at the station #3 and #4, respectively; Simulium sp. (5.585 %) at the station #5. Gammarus sp., which belongs to the group of Amphipoda is found in low polluted river sections (Meyer, 1987).

Limno-drilus species, Chironomus sp. and Chironomus tentans

(Fab-ricius, 1805) were dominant species at the station #3, #4 and #5. These species are an indicator for polysaprobic (heavy

polluted) aquatic systems (Kalyoncu and Zeybek 2011; Arslan et al. 2016; Zeybek, 2017). According to Moisan and Pelletier (2008), these organisms tolerant range are high. They can find low or high DO (mg/l) concentration, Sat O2 (%) and T (°C). Existent abundant of the organic matter are favorable for benthic macroinvertebrates such as Diptera and Oligochaeta (Rashid and Pandit, 2014). Kalyoncu and Zey-bek (2009) determined that the 6th _{station, which is the} down-stream point of the down-stream, has low organism diversity. On the other hand, the most dominant group was Diptera fol-lowed by Oligochaeta (Tubifex tubifex). Chironomus thummi from Diptera, and Simulium sp. were the most dominant taxa in Isparta Stream.

Table 3. Distributions and relative occurrence (%) of macrobenthic invertebrates at the stations.

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5

OLIGOCHAETA Haplotaxida

(1) Tubifex tubifex (Muller, 1774) - 0.223 2.883 3.324 2.738

(2) Tubifex nerthus (Michaelsen, 1908) - 0.111 2.359 2.941 1.971

Naididae

(3) Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri (Claparede, 1862) - - 2.491 2.685 2.519

(4) Limnodrilus udekemianus (Claparede, 1862) - - 2.228 2.685 2.081

(5) Limnodrilus claparedianus (Ratzel, 1869) - - 2.621 1.918 1.533

(6) Psammoryctides albicola (Michaelsen, 1901) 0.141 0.111 1.048 0.895 0.657

Enchytraeidae

(7) Cognettia glandulosa (Michaelsen, 1888) - 0.558 0.786 0.767 -

(8) Henlea perpusilla (Friend, 1911) 0.562 0.223 - 1.151 -

MOLLUSCA Physidae

(9) Physella acuta (Draparnaud, 1805) - 0.782 1.572 1.662 -

Planorbidae

(10) Gyraulus albus (Muller, 1774) - 0.558 1.179 1.406 -

Lymnaeidae

(11) Radix labiata (Müller, 1774) - 0.671 0.917 0.383 -

Valvatidae

(12) Valvata piscinalis (Müller, 1774) 0.562 0.558 0.917 0.639 0.547

Melanopsidae

(13) Melanopsis sp. 0.421 0.446 0.524 1.023 0.328

CRUSTACEA Gammaridae

(9)

Aquat Res 4(3), 260-278 (2021) • https://doi.org/10.3153/AR21020 Research Article 268 INSECTA Ephemeroptera Baetidae (15) Baetis sp. 7.454 5.698 2.752 2.685 3.504

(16) Baetis alpinus (Pictet, 1843) 4.781 3.687 1.834 1.662 2.957

(17) Baetis muticus (Linnaeus, 1758) 4.501 3.687 1.441 1.406 2.628

(18) Baetis rhodani (Pictet, 1843) 7.454 5.811 1.965 1.791 3.943

Ephemeridae

(19) Ephemera sp. 4.219 3.016 0.262 0.383 2.628

(20) Ephemera danica (Müller, 1764) 3.797 2.793 0.131 0.255 2.519

Heptageniidae

(21) Heptagenia sp. 4.078 3.798 0.655 0.639 3.395

(22) Heptagenia sulphurea (O.F. Müller, 1776) 4.219 3.575 0.262 0.383 3.066

(23) Rhithrogena sp. 3.797 3.128 0.131 0.127 3.066

Plecoptera Perlidae

(24) Perla sp. 5.485 4.022 0.655 - 1.971

(25) Perla bipunctata (Pictet, 1833) 5.485 4.134 0.786 - 1.861

Nemouridae

(26) Nemoura marginata (Pictet, 1836) 3.375 2.793 0.524 - 1.861

(27) Nemoura sp. 3.094 2.905 0.524 - 1.971

Trichoptera Glossosomatidae

(28) Glossosoma sp. 3.375 2.905 2.359 2.557 3.395

(29) Glossosoma boltoni (Curtis 1834) 2.390 1.787 1.703 1.791 2.301

(30) Glossossoma conformis (Neboiss, 1963) 2.109 1.675 1.048 1.151 2.409

Hydropsychidae

(31) Hydropsyche sp. 4.501 3.351 2.096 2.046 2.738

(32) Hydropsyche fulvipes (Curtis, 1834) 3.516 2.569 1.179 1.662 2.519

(33) Hydropsyche instabilis (Curtis, 1834) 2.672 1.899 0.655 0.767 0.657

Limnephilidae

(34) Limnephilus sp. 2.251 2.011 1.048 1.023 1.752

(35) Limnephilus lunatus (Curtis, 1834) 2.251 1.899 - - 1.204

Rhyacophilidae

(36) Rhyacophila sp. 3.094 2.458 1.834 1.662 1.861

(37) Rhyacophila isparta (Sipahiler, 1996) 2.251 1.341 1.048 1.151 1.861

(38) Rhyacophila balcanica (Radovanovic 1953) 3.516 1.899 0.524 0.511 1.314

Odonata Aeshnidae

(10)

(40) Anax imperator (Leach 1815) 0.984 0.782 - - 0.985

Calopterygidae

(41) Calopteryx virgo (Linnaeus, 1758) 0.421 0.446 - - 0.328

Coenagrionidae

(42) Coenagrion ornatum (Selys, 1850) 0.562 0.335 - - 0.328

Gomphidae

(43) Onychogomphus sp. 0.984 1.117 0.524 0.511 1.095

(44) Gomphus sp. 0.703 0.671 - - 0.219

Coleoptera Dytiscidae

(45) Agabus bipustulatus (Linnaeus, 1767) - 0.893 1.179 1.151 0.766

(46) Scarodytes halensis (Fabricius, 1787) - 0.446 0.917 0.895 0.766

(47) Hydroporus angustatus (Sturm, 1835) - 0.335 0.655 0.639 -

Diptera Simulidae

(48) Simulium sp. - 3.911 7.339 7.672 5.585

(49) Simulium ornatum (Meigen, 1818) - 3.351 5.111 4.475 2.519

Chironomidae

(50) Chironomus sp. - 0.558 6.291 7.289 3.066

(51) Chironomus tentans (Fabricius, 1805) - - 5.242 5.626 2.519

(52) Chironomus pallidivittatus (Edwards, 1929) - 0.335 4.062 4.731 2.519

(53) Synendotendipes lepidus (Meigen, 1830) - 1.452 2.752 2.301 1.861

(54) Polypedilum convictum (Walker, 1856) - 1.452 2.096 1.791 1.423

(55) Polypedilum laetum (Meigen, 1818) - 1.341 2.491 2.173 1.204

(56) Procladius sp. - 2.346 3.801 3.324 2.519

Tipulidae

(57) Tipula sp. - 2.122 2.621 2.685 1.752

Tabanidae

(58) Tabanus sp. - 2.122 2.359 1.791 1.642

In terms of diversity, the richest was sampling station #2 with 26 families each, 9 of them belonging to Ephemeroptera- Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) group that are classified as sen-sitive organisms to the oxygen concentration in the water. The high percentage of EPT taxa indicates high water quality (Lenat, 1993). In station #2 the most dominant within EPT were Trichoptera, with 4 families. The dominance of the or-ders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera which are considered to be sensitive to environmental stress signifies relatively clean conditions (Merritt, 1978). Four Diptera and Odonata, five Mollusca, three Oligochaeta an one Coleoptera families composed the rest of the macroinvertebrates in sta-tion #2. The stasta-tion #2 is in the upstream of the Kelebek

Stream. According to Meyer (1987), Baetis sp. and Baetis

rhodani located in the organically less polluted stream section

and included in water quality “class I-II”. Zeybek et al. (2014) determined most dominant taxon was Ephemeroptera (a pol-lution sensitive species) in upstream sampling stations in Değirmendere Stream. In the downstream stations except sta-tion #5, the number of EPT families decreased, comparing to station #1 and station #2.

EPT-Taxa [%] was one of the metrics given the best response to the physicochemical variables of water. This metrics are indicated that EPT taxa are sensitive to anthropogenic effects while Oligochaeta taxa are tolerant to anthropogenic effects in aquatic ecosystems (Ode et al. 2005). In this study, the

(11)

270

highest EPT-Taxa [%] values are obtained at the station #1 and #2. These stations are the upstream part of the stream and they are less affected by domestic wastes. On the contrary, the station #3 and #4 are downstream part of the stream. These stations are mostly affected the domestic wastes. The cause of low EPT-Taxa [%] values at the downstream stations in stream is of the pollution that accumulates in the stream as a result of the anthropogenic activities. Other factors depend of the physical properties of the stream such as high temper-ature, low stream incline and reduction of stream flow. In sampling station #4 due to heavy pollution with dam con-struction and domestic waste waters, diversity of macroinver-tebrates decreased and was dominated by semi tolerant and tolerant families to pollution, such as Baetidae, Chirono-midae, Tubificidae, Haplotaxida, Naididae, Enchytraeidae, Tipulidae, Tabanidae and Dytiscidae. According to Hynes (1994), presence of numerous families of highly tolerant or-ganisms usually indicates poor water quality. Due to the pol-lution of river water, the number of sensitive species is re-duced and gradually the environmental conditions change in favor of semi tolerant and tolerant species (Zimmerman, 1993). Going downstream, in sampling station #3, #4 and #5 macroinvertebrate samples consisted from Oligochaeta worms and Diptera, presented in high abundance. Oligo-chaeta is very common in streams and rivers. They are known as tolerant of bad or poor water quality and can tolerate heavy to extreme pollution. According to Brinkhurst and Kennedy (1965), many species of Oligochaeta are tolerant of low oxy-gen concentration and can live in anoxic conditions (Brink-hurst and Kennedy, 1965). Due to high tolerance to organic pollution, they are used as a good indicator species of organic pollution (Barbour, 1996).

The increased number of species in station #2 and #5 occured as the result of increased water level and flow velocity in this station. Due to this improvement in environmental condi-tions, in the station #5, the number of taxa further increased. In total 22 families were present, 9 belonging to the sensitive and semi-sensitive EPT group, and the rest consisted of semi tolerant-tolerant organisms (Dytiscidae, Physidae, Planor-bidae, Valvatidae, Melanopsidae, Lymnaeidae).

Biotic Index Correlations and Statistical Data Analysis

The ecological conditions of Kelebek Stream indicate that the stream is disturbed by anthropogenic activities. The water classification in quality classes (QCs) with biotic and diver-sity indices is shown in Table 4. The distribution of the biotic index results according to seasons are shown by using multi-ple regression analysis (R2_{>0.5) in Figure 5.}

All diversity indices have shown the highest values in station #2, whereas the lowest values are registered in station #4.

High species diversity at the upstream stations indicates un-polluted conditions whereas low species diversity in station #3 and #4 indicates environmental stress. The sampling sta-tion #3 and #4 are heavily disturbed due to dam construcsta-tion and many domestic wastes discharged in this part of the stream. In these two stations, the BOI5 value is the highest, which indicates the presence of organic pollution in the water and oxygen consumption for the decomposition of organic matter. The oxygen depletion at these stations is manifested with low species diversity. Regarding the usefulness of diver-sity indices in the assessment of water bodies, they have been proven to be useful tools for describing the structure of the communities, but they do not indicate the pollution level of aquatic bodies. They are good for assessing organic pollution and eutrophication but poor for assessing toxicity and physi-cal changes.

The all versions of BMWP index values were highest in sta-tion #1 and #5. Based on the ecological quality ratio (EQR), in these two stations, the water is classified in II quality class. The stream water quality is decreasing drastically and be-comes of moderate quality (station #2, #3 and #4). According to SI, the station #1 is Oligosaprob/ Betamesosaprob- Class I-II quality class while the rest of the stations are

Be-tamesosaprob- Class II. This index scores in Table 4 indicates

that upstream of the stream, due to the distance with inhabited areas and lack of waste discharge, the water has a minimum human impact and is of high quality. Going downstream, in urban and rural areas, human activities become more inten-sive and impact physical and chemical parameters of the wa-ter that is manifested with moderate wawa-ter quality.

Our results show that there are differences in water quality classification with different indices analyzing similar re-search in water quality assessment with biotic and diversity indices in other countries, we can see that some of the ma-croinvertebrate based indices are more sensitive and some are less sensitive to the environmental changes and it is difficult to choose which index is more reliable to be applied in stream and river quality assessment in a country (Kalyoncu and Zey-bek, 2011). In our research BMWP (Original), BMWP (Span-ish) and BMWP (Greek) seem to be more reliable and reflect better the environmental situation since they both are based on the presence of sensitive species to environmental varia-bles.

In this study, the random sample cases (10% select case) was made on the biotic indices and physicochemical parameters to verify data sets and to determine that the data was trans-ferred without errors in the SPSS version 20.0. Table 5 indi-cates the correlations of biotic and diversity indices.

(12)

Aquat Res 4(3), 260-278 (2021) • https://doi.org/10.3153/AR21020 Research Article As a result of the correlation analysis, the highest positive

significant correlation was found between the BMWP (Orig-inal), BMWP (Spanish) and BMWP (Greek). The SI is the negatively significant correlated with ASPT, BMWP (Origi-nal), BMWP (Spanish) and BMWP (Greek). BMWP (Greek) is the positively significant correlated with ASPT (r-value

0.952, p˂0.05); BMWP (Greek) is the negatively significant

correlated with FBI (r-value 0.952, p˂0.05). ASPT is the negatively significant correlated with FBI (r-value -0.970,

p˂0.01). However, the increase in index values of BMWP

(Original), BMWP (Spanish) and BMWP (Greek) shows good ecological quality.

Table 4. Average score values and water quality classes of all indices in the stream.

Metric Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5

SI 1.751 1.863 1.883 1.874 1.784

Water quality class I-II II II II II

QCs defined by WFD High Good Good Good Good

BMWP (Original) 113 87 88 73 103

Water quality class II III III III II

QCs defined by WFD Good Moderate Moderate Moderate Good

BMWP (Spanish) 124 95 98 83 112

BMWP (Greek) 1174 921 912 767 1076

ASPT 6.946 5.722 5.026 4.812 6.161

Water quality class I II II III I

QCs defined by WFD High Good Good Moderate High

BBI 10 10 9 8 10

Water quality class I I I II I

QCs defined by WFD High High High Good High

FBI 3.25 4.08 4.91 5.20 4.21

Water quality class I II II II-III I-II

QCs defined by WFD High Good Good Moderate High

Diversity Indices

SDI 0.962 0.976 0.964 0.959 0.972

SWDI 3.528 3.681 3.574 3.293 3.684

MDI 7.036 7.627 7.507 5.025 7.317

Table 5. Pearson’s based correlation assesment between biotic and diversity indices in the stream.

SI BMWP

(Original) (Spanish) BMWP (Greek) BMWP ASPT FBI BBI SDI SWDI MDI

SI 1 -,916* -,919* -,920* -,939* 0,833 -0,648 0,004 0,325 0,748 BMWP (Original) 1 ,998** ,999** ,941* -0,878 0,801 0,033 -0,288 -0,653 BMWP (Spanish) 1 ,994** ,933* -0,866 0,76 -0,029 -0,342 -0,692 BMWP (Greek) 1 ,952* -,892* 0,821 0,059 -0,27 -0,644 ASPT 1 -,970** 0,823 0,033 -0,33 -0,715 FBI 1 -0,848 0,01 0,375 0,69 BBI 1 0,463 0,13 -0,227 SDI 1 ,930* 0,65 SWDI 1 0,868 MDI 1

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

(13)

272

(14)

Aquat Res 4(3), 260-278 (2021) • https://doi.org/10.3153/AR21020 Research Article In this research, CA was applied on lake parameters, to

deter-mine spatial similarity and dissimilarity for classifying of sta-tions. The resulted dendogram (Figure 6), grouped all the five sampling stations into two statistically significant clusters, as station (station #1- #2) and (station #3- #4). On the other hand, the highest similarity was identified in the 3rd_{and 4}th station while the second highest similarity was identified in the 1st _{and 2}nd_station.

Biotic parameters and 22 environmental variables were only used in CCA analysis according to the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Sample Proficiency Test (Figure 7). The obtained re-sults of the KMO Sample Proficiency Test were calculated as 0.793 and show that the sample size is quite good and suffi-cient. The CCA analysis led to the explanation total of 88% variance according to benthic macroinvertebrate orders. The distributions of EPT/OL [%] and EPT- Taxa [%] are posi-tively correlated to DO, Sat. O2 and pH. The distributions of Oligochaeta is positively correlated to EC, Cl, Turbidity, BOI5, PO4-P, NH4-N, NO2-N and NO3-N (Figure 7a). The CCA analysis led to the explanation total of 86.2% variance according to benthic macroinvertebrate species. The distribu-tions of Simulium sp., Chironomus sp., Chironomus tentans,

Tubifex tubifex and Limnodrilus species are positively

corre-lated to EC, Cl, Turbidity, BOI5, PO4-P, NH4-N, NO2-N and NO3-N while they are negatively correlated to DO, Sat. O2 and pH (Figure 7b). The CCA analysis led to the explanation

total of 88.1% variance according to biotic indices. The dis-tributions of BMWP (Original), BMWP (Spanish), BMWP (Greek), ASPT and BBI are positively correlated to DO, Sat. O2 and pH (Figure 7c).

Kazancı and Dügel (2000) recorded that the BBI was in compliance with the physicochemical parameters in Yuvarlak Stream. Kantzaris et al. (2002) recorded that the BMWP, ASPT and Land Quality Indicators (LQI) were insufficient in evaluating water quality while BBI and IBE were proper. Öz and Şengörür (2004) reported that BBI was in accordance with the other indices. Kalyoncu et al. (2008) stated that the BBI and physicochemical data were more proper to evaluate the water quality. Kazancı et al. (2010) mentioned that the BMWP and ASPT were sufficient to evaluate water quality in Aksu Stream. Ogleni and Topal (2011) mentioned that the BMWP and ASPT were sufficient to evaluate water quality. Kalyoncu and Zeybek (2011) found that SWDI and BBI seem to be the most reliable to determine the water quality. Yorulmaz et al. (2015) applied five biotic indices and noted that the FBI was insufficient in evaluating water quality while ASPT, BMWP, SI, and BBI were appropriate. Zeybek et al. (2014) found deviations between BMWP versions. Zeybek (2017) found that the most appropriate indices for the physical and chemical indices were BMWP (original version) and ASPT (original and Czech versions).

(15)

274

(16)

Conclusion

From our results, we can conclude that Kelebek Stream

is disturbed by many anthropogenic activities. The main

pollution sources remain the untreated wastewaters that

are directly discharged into the stream, as well as

indus-trial discharges, agricultural runoff and land use. The

upstream stations of the stream are less polluted due to

the distance with populated areas and farming activities,

whereas in urban areas the stream is heavily polluted and

this is reflected in macroinvertebrate assemblage and

distribution. The increased pollution in station #3 and #4

caused the disappearance of sensitive species from this

part of the stream and appearance of more pollution

tol-erant species, adapted to specific habitats. Our results

have shown that the ecological status of the Kelebek

Stream is moderate quality and urgent measures for the

protection of Gediz River Basin and other water

re-sources in Turkey must be implemented through

profes-sional management plans for river basins.

To improve the quality of Kelebek Stream, one of the

most important branch of the Gediz River, to reduce

stress and pressure on aquatic organisms and to protect

the health of the local people;

• Prevention of uncontrolled discharge of debris

re-moved during the dam construction into the stream,

• Industrial establishments located in the basin should

be inspected frequently and prevented from giving

their wastes to the system without treatment,

• In addition, the water quality of the stream should

be monitored continuously, both physically,

chem-ically and biologchem-ically, and should be able to

inter-vene quickly if necessary.

We believe that this study will constitute a vital

perspec-tive to the monitoring of freshwaters in terms of data.

Compliance with Ethical Standard

Conflict of interests: The authors declare that for this article they

have no actual, potential or perceived conflict of interests.

Ethics committee approval: All procedures performed in studies

involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.

Funding disclosure: -

Acknowledgments: The authors are thankful for the support and

experience to Prof Dr. Hasan KALYONCU.

Disclosure: -

References

Akay, E., Dalkıran, N., Dere, Ş. (2008). Akarsuların

Biy-olojik Su Kalitesinin Belirlenmesinde Bentik Makroomur-gasızların Kullanımı, İklim Değişikliği ve Çevre, 3(1), 60-67.

APHA (2005). Standard methods for the examination of

wa-ter and wastewawa-ter, 21st edn. American Public Health Asso-ciation, Washington, DC.

Arrignon, J. (1976). Aménagement Ecologique et Piscicole

des Eaux Douces, Bordas, Paris, 322 p.

Arslan, N., Salur, A., Kalyoncu, H., Mercan, D., Barışık, B., Odabaşı, D.A. (2016). The use of BMWP and ASPT

in-dices for evaluation of water quality according to macroin-vertebrates in Küçük Menderes River (Turkey). Biologia, 71(1), 49-57.

https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2016-0005

AQEM Consortium (2002). The AQEM sampling method

to be applied in STAR. Chapters 7-8. http://www.eu-star.at/pdf/AqemMacroinvertebrateSamplingProtocol.pdf

(accessed 16.07.2020)

Barbour, M., Gerritsen, J., Griffith, G., Frydenborg, R., McCarron, E., White, J., Bastian, M. (1996). A Framework

for Biological Criteria for Florida Streams Using Benthic Ma-croinvertebrates. Journal of the North American

Benthologi-cal Society, 15(2), 185-211. https://doi.org/10.2307/1467948.

Bonada, N., Rieradevall, M., Prat, N., Resh, V.H. (2006).

Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and macrohabitat connectivity in Mediterranean-Climate streams of Northern California. Journal of The North American Benthological

So-ciety, 25(1), 32-43.

https://doi.org/10.1899/0887-3593(2006)25[32:BMAAMC]2.0.CO;2

Bremond, R., Vuichard, R. (1973). Parameters de la qualite

des eaux: Ministere de la Protection de la Nature et de Envi-ronnement, Documentation, Française, Paris, 179 p.

Brinkhurst, R., Kennedy, C. (1965). Studies on the Biology

of theTubificidae (Annelida, Oligochaeta) in a Polluted Stream. Journal of Animal Ecology, 34(2), 429-443. https://doi.org/10.2307/2659.

Bytyqi, P., Ymeri, P., Czikkely, M., Fetoshi, O., Shala-Ab-azi, A., Ismaili, M., Ramshaj, Q., Millaku, F. (2019). The

(17)

276

in Lepenci River Basin, Kosovo. Journal of Ecological

Engi-neering, 20(11), 43-57.

https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/113409

De Pauw, N., Hawkes, H.A. (1993). Biological Monitoring

of River Water Quality. in: Walley, W.J., Judd, S. (Eds.), River Water Quality Monitoring and Control. Aston Univer-sity, Birmingham, 87-112. ISSN: 1-85449-115-6.

De Pauw, N., Heylen, S. (2001). Biotic index for sediment

quality assessment of watercourses in Flanders, Belgium.

Aquatic Ecology, 35, 121-133.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011478427152.

EC (European Communities) (2006). EC of the European

Parliament and of the council of 6 September 2006 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life. Directive 2006/44. https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri-Serv.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:264:0020:0031:EN:PDF

Egemen, Ö., Sunlu, U. (1996). Water Quality (Second

Edi-tion) (in Turkish). İzmir: Ege University Press. ISBN: 975-7572-60-8

Etemi, F. Z., Bytyqi, P., Ismaili, M., Fetoshi, O., Ymeri, P., Shala-Abazi, A., Muja-Bajraktari, N., Czikkely, M. (2020). The use of macroinvertebrate based biotic indices and

diversity indices to evaluate the water quality of Lepenci river basin in Kosovo. Journal of Environmental Science and

Health, Part A, 55(6), 748-758.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2020.1738172

EU Directive 2000/60/EC 2004–2006 (2005). Common

Im-plementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance on the Intercalibration Process 2004–2006; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2005, Vol. 1; p. 31.

Girgin, S., Akyürek, Z., Usul, N. (2004). Türkiye için

Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Tabanlı Su kalitesi Veri Analiz Sis-temi Geliştirilmesi, 3.Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Bilişim Günleri, 231-247.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. (1988). Rapid field assessment of organic

pollution with a family-level biotic index. Journal of the

North American Benthological Society, 7(1), 65-68. https://doi.org/10.2307/1467832

Hynes, H. (1994). Historical Perspective and Future

Direc-tion of Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Systems. In: Bio-logical Monitoring of Aquatic Systems; Loeb, S. L., Spacie, A., Eds.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, p. 11-22.

Kalyoncu, H., Yorulmaz, B., Barlas, M., Yıldırım, M. Z., Zeybek, M. (2008). Aksu Çayı’nın su kalitesi ve

fizikokim-yasal parametrelerin makroomurgasız çeşitliliği üzerine etkisi. Fırat Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri

Der-gisi, 20(1), 23-33.

Kalyoncu, H., Zeybek, M. (2009). Benthic fauna of Ağlasun

and Isparta streams and determination of water quality ac-cording to physicochemical parameters and Belgium Biotic Index. Biyoloji Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi, 2 (1), 41-48.

Kalyoncu, H., Zeybek, M. (2011). An application of

differ-ent biotic and diversity indices for assessing water quality: A case study in the Rivers Çukurca and Isparta (Turkey).

Afri-can Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(1), 19-27.

Kantzaris, V., Iliopoulou- Georgudaki, J., Katharios, P., Kaspiris, P. (2002). A Comparison of Several Biotic Indices

Used For Water Quality Assessment at The Greek Rivers.

Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 11(11), 1000-1007.

Kazancı, N., Dügel, M. (2000). An evulation of water quality

of Yuvarlakçay stream in the Köycegiz-Dalyan protected area South- Western Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 24, 69-80.

Kazancı, N., Ekingen, P., Türkmen, G., Ertunç, Ö., Dügel, M., Gültutan, Y. (2010). Assesment of ecological quality of

Aksu Stream (Giresun, Turkey) in Eastern Black Sea Region by using Water Framework Directive (WFD) methods based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Review of Hydrobiology, 3(2), 165-184.

Kazi, T.G., Arain, M.B., Jamali, M.K., Jalbani, N., Afridi, H.I., Sarfraz, R.A., Baig, J.A., Shah, A.Q. (2009).

Assess-ment of water quality of polluted lake using multivariate sta-tistical techniques: A case study. Ecotoxicology and

Environ-mental Safety, 72(2), 301-309.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2008.02.024.

Klee, O. (1991). Angewandte Hydrobiologie.- G. Theieme

Verlag, 2. neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, 272, Stutt-gart-New York.

Kolkwitz, R., Marsson, M. (1902). Grundsätze für die

(18)

Aquat Res 4(3), 260-278 (2021) • https://doi.org/10.3153/AR21020 Research Article Fauna. Mitt. Prüfungsanst. Wasserversorgung.

Abwasser-reing. 1, 33-72.

Korycińska, M., Królak, E. (2006). The use of various

bio-tic indices for evaluationof water quality in the Lowland riv-ers of Poland (Exemplified by the Liwiec river). Polish

Jour-nal of Environmental Studies, 15(3), 419-428.

Lenat, D. (1993). Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic

Macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American

Bentho-logical Society, 12, 220-222. https://doi.org/10.2307/1467358

Merritt, R., Cummins, K., Berg, M. (1978). An

Introduc-tion to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 1st ed.; Ken-dall/Hunt Publishing Company: Dubuque, Iowa, U.S.A.

Meyer, D. (1987). Makroskopisch- Biologische

Feldmetho-den zur Wassergütebeurteilung von Fliegewässern, 3. Auflage, A.L.G., 6, 3000, Hannover, 140p.

Moisan, J., Pelletier, L. (2008). Guide de surveillance

bi-ologique basée sur les macroinvertébrés benthiques d’eau douce du Québec-cours d’eau peu profonde à substrat grossier. Direction de Suivi de l’Etat de l’Environnement, Ministère du Développement Durable de l’Environnement et des Parcs.

Moss, D., Furse, M.T., Wright, J.F., Armitage, P.D. (1987). The prediction of the macro-invertebrate fauna of

un-polluted running-water sites in Great Britain using environ- mental data. Freshwater Biology, 17, 41-52.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1987.tb01027.x

Nikolsky, G.V. (1963). The Ecology of Fishes (Translated by

L. Birkett), Academic Press, London and New York, 352 p.

Ode, P.R., Rehn, A.C., May, J.T. (2005). A quantitative tool

for assessing the integrity of southern coastal California streams. Environmental Management, 35, 493-504.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0035-8.

Ogleni, N., Topal, B. (2011). Water quality assessment of the

Mudurnu river (Turkey), using biotic indices. Water

Re-sources Managemant, 25, 2487-2508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9822-1

Öz, N., Sengörür, B. (2004). the determining of water

qual-ity with biotic indices in the Melen river and its tributaries.

Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 13(1), 69-70.

Rashid, R., Pandit, A. K., (2014). Macroinvertebrates

(Oli-gochaetes) as indicators of pollution: A review. Journal of

Ecology and the Natural Environment, 6(4), 140-144. https://doi.org/10.5897/JENE2014.0443

Skriver, J., Friberg, N., Kirkegaard, J. (2001). Biological

assessment of watercourse quality in Denmark: Introduction of the Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI) as the official bio-monitoring method. Verhandlungen des Internationalen

Ver-ein Limnologie, 27, 1822-1830.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03680770.1998.11901556

Somerfield, P.J. (2008). Identification of the Bray-Curtis

similarity index: Comment on Yoshioka (2008). Marine

Ecology Progress Series, 372, 303-306. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07841.

Svobodá, Z., Lloyd, R., Máchová, J., Vykusová, B. (1993).

Water quality and fish health, FAO, EIFAC technical paper, No:54.

Tanyolac, J. (2004). Limnology (3rd edition) (in Turkish),

Ankara: Hatipoğlu Press. ISBN: 975-752-746-6

Ter Braak, C.J.F. (1995). Ordination. In: Jongman RHG, ter

Braak CJF, Van Tongeren OFR, editors. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge University Press, pp. 91-173.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511525575.007

Uslu, O., Türkman, A. (1987). Su kirliliği ve kontrolü.

An-kara: T.C. Başbakanlık Çevre Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları 398s.

Ünlü, A., Çoban, F., Tunç, S. (2008). Investigation of Lake

Hazar Water Quality According to physical and inorganic chemical parameters (in Turkish with English abstract).

Jour-nal of The Faculty of Engineeering and Architecture of Gazi University, 23(1), 119-127.

Wetzel, R.G. (2001). Limnology Lake and Reservoir

Eco-systems. Academic Press, San Diego. Third Edition. Acade-mic Press, San Diego. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-02112-6

WHO (World Heath Organization) (2011). Guidelines for

drinking-water quality. World Heath Organization Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, NLM classification: WA 675. ISBN: 978 92 4 154815 1

(19)

278

Verep, B., Serdar, O., Turan, D., Şahin, C. (2005).

Deter-mination of water quality in terms of physico-chemical struc-ture of the river Iyidere (Trabzon). Ecology, 14(57), 26-35.

Yorulmaz, B., Sukatar, A., Barlas, M. (2015). Comparative

analysis of biotic indices for evaluation of water quality of Esen river in South-West anatolia, Turkey. Fresenius

Enviro-mental Bulletin, 24(1a), 188-194

Yoshioka, P.M. (2008). Misidentification of the Bray-Curtis

similarity index. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 368, 309-310.

https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07728

Zeybek, M., Kalyoncu, H., Karakuş, B., Özgül, S. (2014).

The use of BMWP and ASPT indices for evaluation of water quality according to macroinvertebrates in Değirmendere

Stream (Isparta, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Zoology, 38, 603-613.

https://doi.org/10.3906/zoo-1310-9

Zeybek, M. (2017). Macroinvertebrate-based biotic indices

for evaluating the water quality of Kargı Stream (Antalya, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Zoology, 41, 476-486.

https://doi.org/10.3906/zoo-1602-10

Zimmerman, M. (1993). The Use of the Biotic Index as an

Indication of Water Quality. In Tested Studies for Laboratory Teaching. Proceedings of the 5th Workshop/Conference of the Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Parta 757 Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE); Goldman, C.A., Hauta P.L., O’Donnell, M.A., Andrews S.E., & van der Heiden R., Vol. 5, pp.85-98.